Disposed

Sri. G. Panduranga Kamath v. Fedbank Financial Services Limited

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2024WP/533/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior-citizen flat purchasers who are not borrowers sought quashment of a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act and direction to the Bank to seize other flats instead. The Court held no judicial direction on which property to seize was possible, disposed of the writ, reserved liberty to file a representation to the Bank for consideration, and continued interim protection meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a representation to the Bank within one week; Bank to consider it within one week thereafter; interim protection from precipitation till consideration.

Sri. G. Panduranga Kamath Vs Fedbank Financial… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:3289 WP No. 533 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 533 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. G. PANDURANGA KAMATH, S/O. LATE G. APPURAYA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO. 106, 1ST FLOOR, BSR KOORLA RESIDENCY, KOGILU VILLAGE, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶9

SRI. PALLAVI P KAMATH, W/O. SRI. G. PANDURANGA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 106, 1ST FLOOR, BSR KOORLA RESIDENCY, KOGILU VILLAGE, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶10

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED CIN NO. U65910KL19959PLC008910 CORPORATE OFFICE AT KANAKIA WALL STREET,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:3289 WP No. 533 of 2024

¶16

A-WING, 5TH FLOOR, UNIT NO. 511 AND 512, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, CHAKAFA, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 093, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶17

AND ALSO REG BRANCH OFFICE, FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, FEDERAL TOWERS, AUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 683 101.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY D., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DATED:24.07.2020, ISSUED AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN SL.NO.25 IN UNIT NO.106 IS CONCERN, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK, AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashment of a possession notice dated 24.07.2020 and seeks a direction directing the Bank to sell other 11 flats and leave the flat of the petitioners alone.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:3289 WP No. 533 of 2024

¶26

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Nagendra Kumar K., appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel

¶27

Sri.Narayana Swamy D., appearing for the respondent.

¶28

The petitioners are not the borrowers. The borrower

¶29

is developer of the apartment complex, in which, the petitioners purchase a house on 14.12.2017. By then, the borrower had mortgaged all the flats in the apartment complex to respondent No.1 - Bank prior to 14.12.2017. Therefore, the first charge over the properties is with the first respondent - Bank. The loan having become sticky, the Bank initiates proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' for short) and secures an order at the hands of the learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. These very petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.No.6410/2021 challenging the very same possession order passed by the learned Magistrate. This Court disposed the writ petition by an order dated 23.04.2021 by observing as follows:

¶30

" Petitioners have challenged order dated 16.03.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.5821/2020 passed by the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:3289 WP No. 533 of 2024

¶33

XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶34

2. It is settled that a person aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ("DRT" for short). (See United Bank of Inida Vs. Satyawati Tandon and others¹ ).

¶35

3. In the circumstances, this petition does not merit consideration and it is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶36

No costs."

¶37

The position even as on today remains the same.

¶38

The petitioners have filed the second petition i.e., the subject petition for the very same relief. The reason projected by the petitioners is that the petitioners are senior citizens and there are other flats, which the Bank can take possession of and not the petitioners.

¶39

The submission does not merit acceptance for

¶40

passage of any judicial order directing the Bank to take possession of a particular property. The petitioners are however reserved liberty to submit a representation on their grievances to the Bank, within one week from today. In the event a

¶41

1 2010 (8) SCC 110

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:3289 WP No. 533 of 2024

¶44

representation is submitted, the Bank shall consider the same, within one week thereafter and pass appropriate orders.

¶45

Till the consideration of a representation, the Bank shall not precipitate the matter, in the light of an interim order subsisting in the case at hand, as on today.

¶46

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT:SNN

Sri. G. Panduranga Kamath v. Fedbank Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. G. Panduranga Kamath v. Fedbank Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K C S Nair Vs Fedbank Financial Services Limited

Sri K Prasad Vs M/S Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Dr Mahesh Kumar Sahu Vs the Malleshwaram Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Smt. Divya Babu, Vs Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Sri Sandeep Gururaj Vs the Station House Officer

Meenu Uthpadakarahagu Maaratagarara Abirudhi Sahakara Sangha Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka